There is a long list of things that need to be accomplished in Iraq and they rather be spending their time and energy dealing with those before they leave office then dealing with the NK nuclear issue.

Mmm, so they had a nuclear reactor and one of their guys met a North Korea…Considering the fact that Syria and North Korea are both members of the G77 and the Non-aligned Movement, I’d say the evidence presented in he video is rather unconvincing.

IMO the Bush Administration wants the North Korea sideshow to end so they can focus more on squaring away Iraq before the end of this presidency.

Did I read that right? The Bush administration thinks it can “square away Iraq” in less than a year? Good luck with that.

IMO the Bush Administration wants the North Korea sideshow to end so they can focus more on squaring away Iraq before the end of this presidency. That is why they were desperate for a deal with the Norks no matter how bad it was.

It was just that the deal that Chris Hill came up with was so bad that not even our Congress could hold their noses and agree to support it.

Richardson, with regard to both Israel/Palestine and North Korea, this seems to be the case. However, considering that both of these legacy-building moves are likely to fail - as did Clinton’s own late-2nd term initiatives in these areas - they end up being the next president’s problem. I’m just wondering at what point no deal at all remains better than an imperfect one…

1. To prove to people that the Israelis were not just trigger-happy.

2. To prove to any sceptics still out there that Syria does not have peaceful intentions.

3. To show that President Bush has been right about North Korea all along.

4. To further discredit any remaining pro-North South Koreans.

5. To put pressure on China to put pressure on North Korea to come clean and make a deal.

6. To make it easier for North Korea to decide to confess its past sins and get the nuke deal done.

7. To reassure the American public and any baddies out there that US intelligence is still pretty good, so don’t try anything.

8. To send a signal to Iran.

9. To not waste a good presentation.

Chris Hill was said to have persuaded the White House in 2007 that the six-party talks offered a realistic chance to accomplish a peace treaty formally ending the 1950-1953 Korean war. A peace deal of that magnitude would be a coup for Bush – but only if the North Koreans genuinely abandoned their nuclear programs. In Dec 2007, it was said that Chris Hill’s job was hanging in the balance if he didn’t deliver.

The Singapore agreement was the result — something so ludicrous that it insults people’s intelligence. It was sort of like the Banco Delta agreement where the US ended up with egg on its face after the North got its money — AND the promise that the US would open up its financial channels — the first step being removed from the terrorist list.

This time, I believe Bush said he had been yanked along enough. He and dear Ms. Rice have left poor Chris Hill out on a limb — and have started to saw it off.

The release of this briefing material — which has been available to the world for a long time as the Israeli Prime Minister released it to Canada’s PM in March — and to every world leader he has talked to since Sep 2007. Even early on Lebanon showed the Israeli dossier to Syria in 2007. This stuff in the CIA briefing is more media hype than news.

Maybe I’m just too naive compared to all the worldly viewers of these events…

Intermittently, when North Korea hits Page One, remoras like Froomkin float by and cling just long enough to misinterpret the story.

I learned a new word. You are the master of metaphors, Joshua.

Froomkin’s theory requires you to believe that our lame capon of a President is plotting a military adventure at the nadir of his political power and nine months from the end of his term. To believe that, you must have been holding your smoke since at least February 17, 2007. And from the looks of Froomkin, that’s at least as plausible a theory as any he’s offered.

In fact, some advocates of this deal in the Administration advocated releasing this information to get the issue behind them and move on with rallying support for lifting sanctions.

The State Department did everything in its power to keep this evidence from being leaked and screwing up its giveaway to Kim Jong Il. It was a few principled die-hards like Hoekstra and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who finally forced the Administration to come clean, after months of public and private demands:

The timing of the congressional briefing is nonetheless awkward for the Bush administration’s diplomatic initiative to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program and permanently disable the reactor at Yongbyon. The CIA’s hand was forced, officials said, because influential lawmakers had threatened to cut off funding for the U.S. diplomatic effort unless they received a full account of what the administration knew. [WaPo, Robin Wright]

Wright is a transparent lefty and no fan of Bush, but she’s honest enough to pass along what her sources are telling her. In light of this, to offer one example, I think you’re completely misinterpreting Hoekstra’s remarks, because you’ve taken his statement out of its broader context.

Maybe you’d care to reconsider your theory.